Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)

329 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. & Nat'l Union Elec. Corp.
  631 F.2d 1069· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge would hold that no case, properly separated into claims cognizable at common law, can be too complex for a jury trial without violating due process.
• The Comm. FOR Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg
  463 F.2d 788· D.C. Cir.· 1971-10-28 ·cited 35×
  The court held that executive privilege does not preclude a district court from conducting an in camera inspection of documents to determine the extent of privilege, and that the government cannot claim absolute immunity for documents based solely on the assertion of its head.
• Garmon v. Foust
  668 F.2d 400· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that Iowa's general five-year statute of limitations, rather than the two-year statute for injuries to person or reputation, applies to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Indus. Indem., Inc. v. Moon Landrieu
  615 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) because the suit against the Secretary of HUD for construction retainages arose under federal law and could be paid from a fund separate from the Treasury.
• Eli Peritz v. Liberty Loan Corp.
  523 F.2d 349· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that class certification was improperly delayed beyond the permissible period allowed by Rule 23, and thus vacated the order of certification.
• Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer
  655 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 33×
  The court concurred separately to suggest the trial court reconsider its grant of summary judgment based on the fiduciary duty owed.
• COX v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.
  847 F.2d 725· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to seek disqualification under Canon 4 and that the appearance of impropriety under Canon 9 did not warrant disqualification given the circumstances.
• State OF Alaska v. United States
  754 F.2d 851· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the use of floatplanes on a small lake is insufficient, as a matter of law, to render the lake navigable for purposes of determining title under the equal footing doctrine.
• Keylik v. Goldstein
  724 F.2d 844· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that an attorney's prior consultation with a potential witness, even if brief and followed by withdrawal, can create a conflict of interest warranting disqualification if the matters are substantially related to the current litigation, and that opposing counsel has
• Walker v. Pettit Constr. Co., Inc.
  605 F.2d 128· 4th Cir.· 1979-09-05 ·cited 32×
  Damages for pain and suffering or mental anguish are not recoverable under § 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Punitive damages are also not recoverable under this section.
• Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane
  370 F.2d 508· 2d Cir.· 1966-12-16 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the majority's decision, arguing that the court should not rewrite the Warsaw Convention by judicial fiat.
• Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. E. BAY Union OF MacHinists
  344 F.2d 300· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court properly struck the second affirmative defense asserting collateral estoppel based on a prior NLRB decision, as the contract termination issue was not essential to the NLRB's final ruling and the NLRB's initial decision was not final.
• Brouk v. Managed Funds
  286 F.2d 901· 8th Cir.· 1961-01-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not create an implied private right of action for a registered investment company to sue its directors for breach of fiduciary duty or statutory violations, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
• Varsic v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  607 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erroneously transferred the case, as venue was proper in the Central District of California under the ERISA venue provision, and granted a writ of mandamus to rescind the transfer order.
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Honorable Miles W. Lord
  522 F.2d 612· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-27 ·cited 31×
  Foreign governments cannot sue as parens patriae to collect antitrust damage claims of their citizens; such claims must proceed via Rule 23 class actions. Mandamus is not appropriate to review a district court's interlocutory ruling within its jurisdiction.
• The Plum Tree, Inc. v. Stockment
  488 F.2d 754· 3d Cir.· 1973-11-30 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court's order transferring the action was improper because it was made without sufficient supporting evidence and without a hearing or opportunity for argument.
• Shultz v. Mistletoe Express Serv., Inc.
  434 F.2d 1267· 10th Cir.· 1970-12-08 ·cited 31×
  The court held that terminal operators were employees under the FLSA, not independent contractors, and that the trial court erred in failing to exercise discretion regarding an injunction for future violations and in denying a restitution injunction for back wages.
• Houston Fearless Corp. v. Teter
  318 F.2d 822· 10th Cir.· 1963-06-13 ·cited 31×
  A corporation is considered 'doing business' for venue purposes if its activities in the forum state are substantial, continuous, and regular, meeting the minimum contacts standard for amenability to service of process.
• Beattie v. United States
  756 F.2d 91· D.C. Cir.· 1984-12-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not require identifying a single governing act or omission when multiple acts or omissions occur in different places; liability can attach to each act or omission that proximately caused the harm.
• Press Mach. Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp.
  727 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the settlement agreement, when interpreted under Missouri contract law considering surrounding circumstances, granted PMC a limited license under Smith's subsequently issued patent, and the agreement was not ambiguous.
• Crane Co. v. Am. Standard, Inc.
  490 F.2d 332· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prior appellate decision's mandate clearly allowed for damages to be determined by the district court judge, and that Standard was not entitled to a jury trial on the merits of Crane's fraud claim.
• The Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co.
  482 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-24 ·cited 30×
  A sale or offering for sale precludes patentability unless the contract contains an express or clearly implied condition that the sale is primarily for experimental use.
• Douglass v. Glenn E. Hinton Invs., Inc.
  440 F.2d 912· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the general fraud statute of limitations for Washington, which tolls until discovery, should apply to federal securities claims, rather than a more recently enacted state securities statute with a different accrual rule.
• Domenico Ruggiero v. Compania Peruana de Vapores "Inca Capac Yupanqui"
  639 F.2d 872· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 29×
  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) mandates that actions against foreign states, as defined by the Act, must be tried without a jury, even if jurisdiction could otherwise be based on diversity or federal question grounds.
• Lumber Prod. Indus. Workers Local # 1054 v. W. Coast Indus. Relations Ass'n, Inc.
  775 F.2d 1042· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the LMRA and that the union's state law tort claim was preempted by the NLRA.
• Herbert v. Lando
  568 F.2d 974· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-07 ·cited 28×
  The First Amendment protects the editorial process from compelled discovery in libel cases involving actual malice claims.
• Bowers v. Campbell
  505 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 28×
• Bryant v. Carleson
  444 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 28×
• Lane v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Boston
  871 F.2d 166· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 26×
  The Eleventh Amendment shields states from copyright infringement damage suits in federal court unless Congress unequivocally abrogates that immunity in the statute itself.
• Collins v. United States
  783 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 26×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is not limited to simple accidents and its discretionary function exception should be narrowly construed. Congressional appropriations for FTCA judgments indicate approval of this narrow construction.
• Ducre v. The Executive Officers OF Halter Marine, Inc.
  752 F.2d 976· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the 1976 amendment to La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 23:1032 does not bar claims where exposure predates the amendment but manifestation/diagnosis occurs after, and that manufacturers cannot seek indemnity from executive officers for active fault.
• Friends FOR ALL Child., Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  746 F.2d 816· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that District of Columbia tort law recognizes a cause of action for the cost of diagnostic examinations necessitated by a defendant's negligence, even in the absence of proven physical injury, and that a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to f
• Quackenbush v. Johnson City Sch. Dist.
  716 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) provides an exclusive remedy, and a plaintiff cannot bypass its administrative procedures to seek damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Nickels v. Koehler Mgmt. Corp.
  541 F.2d 611· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Ohio's four-year statute of limitations for general fraud actions should be applied to federal securities law claims brought in federal court, as it best effectuates the policies of the federal securities laws.
• Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp.
  485 F.2d 78· 4th Cir.· 1973-06-04 ·cited 26×
  A subrogor with a retained pecuniary interest can sue for the entire loss, even if the subrogee controls the litigation and would ultimately receive most of the recovery, to avoid destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Kavanaugh v. Ford Motor Co.
  353 F.2d 710· 7th Cir.· 1965-11-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Daniel F. Kavanaugh, despite operating through a corporation, was an 'automobile dealer' under the Dealers' Day in Court Act because the integrated agreements and circumstances showed he was the intended dealer, and disregarding the corporate form was necessar
• Friedlander v. Troutman
  788 F.2d 1500· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 25×
  Federal law governs the characterization of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims for statute of limitations purposes, and a single, most appropriate state statute of limitations must be selected for all such claims within a state. The Georgia blue sky law is the most analogous statute,
• Denis Henry v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
  508 F.2d 28· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 25×
  The court held that New Jersey's choice of law principles mandate applying Quebec's statute of limitations, dismissing the suit as time-barred.
• Growden v. ED Bowlin & Assocs., Inc.
  733 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's contacts with Louisiana were insufficient to establish minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction.
• Kosutic Velidor v. L/P/G Benghazi
  653 F.2d 812· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had in personam jurisdiction over the foreign shipowner under the FSIA's commercial activity exception and that service of process on the ship's master was sufficient for this claim.
• Decker v. Anheuser-Busch
  632 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the 90-day period for filing suit commences when the aggrieved person, not their attorney, receives notice of the right to sue.
• Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  497 F.2d 1330· 8th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in severing the plaintiffs' individual actions, as they arose from the same series of transactions and presented common questions of law or fact under Rule 20(a).
• Jordan Bldg. Corp. v. Doyle
  401 F.2d 47· 7th Cir.· 1968-08-14 ·cited 24×
  A private civil remedy exists under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 for defrauded purchasers of securities, and such remedy is not precluded by other express remedies.
• Smith v. Duff & Phelps, Inc.
  891 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 23×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the statute of limitations for section 10(b) claims is two years, determined by analogous state law, and that a corporation has a duty to disclose material information to employee-shareholders even when stock repurchase agreements are in place, if t
• Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc.
  862 F.2d 439· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a district court has the authority to facilitate notice of an ADEA action to potential class members who have not yet opted in, provided the notice is truthful and non-misleading. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the defe
• Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.
  724 F.2d 1397· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 23×
  The court should affirm the denial of the Rule 15(c) motion because the record lacks sufficient evidence to impute notice of the lawsuit's filing to the party sought to be substituted before the limitations period expired.
• Donald G.H. Storck v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  712 F.2d 1194· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations from § 10(b) of the NLRA applies to both employer and union in a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim, as established by DelCostello v. Teamsters.
• Zed Daniels v. Kieser
  586 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1978-11-07 ·cited 23×
  A prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil liability for actions taken in securing a material witness arrest warrant when those actions are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.
• Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co.
  509 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery and dismissing the class action, finding that a class action was not superior to other available methods for adjudication, particularly in light of the ongoing state court proceedings
• Marine Petroleum Co. v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
  657 F.2d 1231· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the order denying the Department of Energy's motion to dismiss it as a party was an appealable final decision on a collateral issue under the Cohen doctrine.